- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
I did not offer an opinion.
I showed that the Voice operates in a way Williams does not understand.
It is not helpful that you continue to use of logically fallacious arguments.
I did not offer an opinion.Is there a reason you cannot understand that her points trump your opinion?
I did not offer an opinion.
I showed that the Voice operates in a way Williams does not understand.
It is not helpful that you continue to use of logically fallacious arguments.
Then you should show that to be the case instead of repeating false claims ad nauseum.I believe that Professor Victoria Grieves Williams is more knowledgeable than you on this subject.
Then you should show that to be the case instead of repeating false claims ad nauseum.
Can you do that?
Or will you find another copypaste that makes no sense and claim it as yours?
You keep saying that but cannot prove it to be true. Why is that?What you don't understand is that the copy & pasted articles are from people with qualifications that far outstrip the username that you are.
You have never shown that my statements, which accurately reflect what the Voice proposes, could be other than statements of fact.I am copying and pasting facts, you are posting opinions, nothing more.
Show where I have expressed an opinion.You are allowed your opinion,
I realise that is the case, and I gave reasons why their points were either contradictory or had no relationship to the Voice.Both Professor Victoria Grieves Williams and Warren Mundine have pointed out their concerns, and I have posted them because I agree with them.
I don't set out to persuade anyone. If you cannot tell the difference between lies, disinformation and irrelevances then it's an issue for you to resolve.What you can't understand is that after all your rhetoric you have been unable to persuade me
You keep saying that but cannot prove it to be true.
You have never shown that my statements, which accurately reflect what the Voice proposes, could be other than statements of fact.
Stan makes the no case
More than primary producers can receive the fuel rebate, many many businessesYou mean "one law for all" except when you are a primary producer!
How many ATSI communities can get it?More than primary producers can receive the fuel rebate, many many businesses
Never have you made a comment that shows that to be true.That is the problem, your statements do not accurately reflect what the Voice proposes.
Neither of those points are relevant.If it did you would have job with the Yes campaign and the majority of voters would be voting with you.
How about you stump up with a rebuttal to my points instead of resorting to lies.And if you bothered to try and understand everyone's concern, rather than thinking everyone a fool, you would have realised the issues.
I don't set out to persuade anyone.
Not really interested in who how or what.How many ATSI communities can get it?
You just showed that your claim of equality under the law was bogus.Not really interested in who how or what.
Rubbish.You just showed that your claim of equality under the law was bogus.
Not a single word was relevant to the referendum proposal.On a rare visit in here.
Never stand between an activist and a big pot of free money.
Noel Pearson in the media in recent times. He hasn't forgotten how the Feds cancelled the old ATSIC. It was rotten to the core. Crooked.
Now he wants his own back, and politically, he's got the inner city nitwits in power.
In general terms, if you can't see a spiv coming ..honestly you're not going to last long as a stock market trader!
The same people who blockaded the Springboks 1971 rugby tour - they now want us to vote for Australian apartheid!
@farmerge showed that laws are not applied equally.Rubbish.
Are you saying that the tax law is racially biased ?
Prove it
Well you certainly can't defend your latest piece of tripe.@farmerge showed that laws are not applied equally.
Your straw man tactic is typical of your constant diversions an incomprehensible posts.
How about you prove something seeing I have never seen you capable of defending a single point of yours that I have queried.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?